Kernel page, once again

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Tue Jun 15 23:07:23 PDT 2004

Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> Roel Neefs said the following on 16-06-2004 06:22:
>> I think the community has seen enough now of these mails Jeroen, udev
>> works, the majority of the community wants udev in, Matt made a
>> decision, please try to respect those. There's no pointing in bringing
>> the subject up every couple days.
> I didn't bring up the subject, and I was very careful to not suggest 
> the removal of udev/hotplug. However, I can't help it if my previous 
> views are deemed correct by others; especially not if a knowledgable 
> editor about the subject states it that way.
> PS don't try to attribute your opinion to the community; there have 
> been positive reactions to my mails too. The discussion so far has 
> been very constructive, working towards a solution within the given 
> paramaters. Let's try to keep it that way.
The problem I see is, instead of constructive suggestions as to how to 
fix the problem, you are wanting to just take them out.  If we did that 
every time we have problems, we'd have never gotten past LFS 4.0 and the 
NSS libs issues.  A lot of the confusion with the recent questions is 
because the OP was posting to the incorrect list for his question 
(BLFS-Support instead of LFS-Hackers), and many people didn't realize 
that the OP was on a udev-driven system, and therefore were giving 
suggestions that would NOT work in that enviornment.  I think the 
community needs to come together and try to work these issues out, not 
go running away from bringing the book forward to where it should be.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list